TexasCHLforum.com

For a better understanding of police use of firearms, there is no better individual agency documentation than the NYPD's Annual Firearms Incident Reports, which break down the use of guns by their officers in ways that provide lots of food for thought.

They make truly worthwhile reading for those who want to gain insight into these incidents.

The 2006 report can be found here. In the On page 6 you'll note that the hit rate for shots fired during gunfights improved from 8% (that's not a misprint) to 30% over the 2005 data.

The 2010 report (the latest I could find) can be found here.

The most notable change is that under the progressive leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, the agency no longer reports hit rates. They now use a criterion called "objective completion rate" which is a "pass / fail" analysis of effect on the bad guy. The reader no longer has any way of learning how accurate the officers' fire was, and no way to assess the effectiveness of training in that regard. This is no doubt another "transparency feature" implemented under Mr. Bloomberg and is consistent with the progressive approach to dealing with the facts when the facts hurt. The solution is easy: change the calculations to hide the facts.

cover up of the rear end, I guess.

Excaliber wrote:The solution is easy: change the calculations to hide the facts.

You got that right! Lies, darn lies and statistics.

I have heard that 'Figure's dont lie, but liers do figure'.

We do have a report on the latest shooting near the Empire State Building. The PoPo hit more people than the BG did. Now, I haven't read through that thread yet, but I also noted that one of the articles stated that neither office had fired their weapon in the line of duty before and neither were relatively new to the force. Unfortunately, the BG probably had more practice with his gun than those LEO's did theirs.

C-dub wrote:We do have a report on the latest shooting near the Empire State Building. The PoPo hit more people than the BG did. Now, I haven't read through that thread yet, but I also noted that one of the articles stated that neither office had fired their weapon in the line of duty before and neither were relatively new to the force. Unfortunately, the BG probably had more practice with his gun than those LEO's did theirs.

Very few officers ever fire their guns in the line of duty, but all must be prepared to do so. Both officers had over 10 years of experience and weren't rookies by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the officers at the empire state building fired at close range - from the video I'd estimate 6-8 feet. The other officer had flanked out to the side and fired at 2 - 3 times that distance. The investigation will eventually figure out who fired what, but from the angles my first guess is that the second officer who fired at longer range was responsible for shots that hit the planter.

The bad guy didn't need much skill - he shot his victim at point blank range.

NYPD has a very difficult time maintaining firearms skill. Their single range facility at Rodman's neck is always fully scheduled, but getting 35,000 people through just qualifications, let alone additional training, is a monumental challenge. This is complicated by the fact that many of their officers do not shoot on their own time and dime because they see it as a compensation issue and will not shoot if they're not being paid to do so. It shouldn't surprise anyone when these circumstances culminate in incidents like the one last week.

Excaliber wrote:NYPD has a very difficult time maintaining firearms skill. Their single range facility at Rodman's neck is always fully scheduled, but getting 35,000 people through just qualifications, let alone additional training, is a monumental challenge. This is complicated by the fact that many of their officers do not shoot on their own time and dime because they see it as a compensation issue and will not shoot if they're not being paid to do so. It shouldn't surprise anyone when these circumstances culminate in incidents like the one last week.

It's not like NYC doesn't have the financial wherewithal to build another range. In the greater scheme of NYC's overall fiscal year, the cost of one or two more shooting ranges ought to be a drop in the bucket......compared say, to their payroll....particularly when the construction cost is amortized over the decades that the range will be in use. The fact that they don't do it is an indictment of the city government's and NYPD's attitude to the subject of firearms in general. That the officers regard it as a compensation issue points to just how poisonous the influence of a union can be on a large city's critical services. God forbid you should do anything to improve your own skills without getting paid overtime for it.

Plus, there's something just plain wrong with men or women who don't enjoy a trip to the range to just blow stuff up and make a lot of noise. How can that NOT be fun, and what kind of stunted spirit doesn't enjoy a little fun now and then?

The fact that the city discourages the free expression of the 2nd amendment leads directly to the hiring of police who've never had the opportunity to shoot and develop an interest in firearms. That they have a union that won't let them cop a squat without permission from the local shop steward is insane. You're right Excaliber....this is the underlying cause of the 9 victims being shot this weekend.

I bet the cost of another gun range is much less than the amount the department will be paying the 9 bystanders.

jmra wrote:I bet the cost of another gun range is much less than the amount the department will be paying the 9 bystanders.

THANK YOU Captain Obvious!!! (Just kidding!) You're spot on. I'm guessing that damages would have covered the cost of both ranges......even taking into account the union labor.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Excaliber wrote:NYPD has a very difficult time maintaining firearms skill. Their single range facility at Rodman's neck is always fully scheduled, but getting 35,000 people through just qualifications, let alone additional training, is a monumental challenge. This is complicated by the fact that many of their officers do not shoot on their own time and dime because they see it as a compensation issue and will not shoot if they're not being paid to do so. It shouldn't surprise anyone when these circumstances culminate in incidents like the one last week.

It's not like NYC doesn't have the financial wherewithal to build another range. In the greater scheme of NYC's overall fiscal year, the cost of one or two more shooting ranges ought to be a drop in the bucket......compared say, to their payroll....particularly when the construction cost is amortized over the decades that the range will be in use. The fact that they don't do it is an indictment of the city government's and NYPD's attitude to the subject of firearms in general. That the officers regard it as a compensation issue points to just how poisonous the influence of a union can be on a large city's critical services. God forbid you should do anything to improve your own skills without getting paid overtime for it.

Plus, there's something just plain wrong with men or women who don't enjoy a trip to the range to just blow stuff up and make a lot of noise. How can that NOT be fun, and what kind of stunted spirit doesn't enjoy a little fun now and then?

The fact that the city discourages the free expression of the 2nd amendment leads directly to the hiring of police who've never had the opportunity to shoot and develop an interest in firearms. That they have a union that won't let them cop a squat without permission from the local shop steward is insane. You're right Excaliber....this is the underlying cause of the 9 victims being shot this weekend.

In any agency one finds hard workers and not so hard workers. NYPD is no different, and with just under 35,000 officers they've got lots of both.

I doubt that anyone would really try to interfere with an officer who wanted to shoot on his own time, and in fact some work quite hard to hone their skills and be the best they can be. Others take the "if they're not payin' I'm not doin'" approach. I think this is more of an excuse for laziness and apathy than a union issue. These are the same type of officers who won't carry a gun off duty because they're not being paid to do so. Go figure.

I just remember being tremendously frustrated when I lived in NYC as a non-union employee, with certain employees in other positions who were union members, and who had that same ultra-legalistic attitude about work. "If it ain't in my contract, I'm not doin' it. Period." And I was just asking for someone to lend a hand for a second. But they fully expected to be helped in return. I have no use for people like that. They called me "scab," but I call them "useless pimples on the behind of progress."

I suspect very few gun ranges in NYC.

I suspect many injuries were minor. (bullet fragments and concrete wounds etc )

I suspect this may be like a Metro bus accident in Houston. ( they are required to lock the bus doors after an accident, as people from the area pile on to the bus and are injured )

philip964 wrote:I suspect many injuries were minor. (bullet fragments and concrete wounds etc )

Maybe, maybe not.
Even if they are minor, would you want to be shot (even by a fragment) because the cop cant shoot straight?

What if the itty bitty fragment (that was done by the errant shot by an officer who cant shoot straight and he hit the ground, the marble walls of the building, or whatever else) went into your eye and now you are blind?

Thats just a fragment, what harm can it do?

Thats just a minor issue as you still have your life and limbs.

So lets just ignore it.
I dont think so

Excaliber wrote:
The most notable change is that under the progressive leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, the agency no longer reports hit rates. They now use a criterion called "objective completion rate" which is a "pass / fail" analysis of effect on the bad guy. The reader no longer has any way of learning how accurate the officers' fire was, and no way to assess the effectiveness of training in that regard. This is no doubt another "transparency feature" implemented under Mr. Bloomberg and is consistent with the progressive approach to dealing with the facts when the facts hurt. The solution is easy: change the calculations to hide the facts.

The officers shoot, then they paint the bullseye around the holes.

Excaliber wrote: ...
The most notable change is that under the progressive leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, the agency no longer reports hit rates. They now use a criterion called "objective completion rate" which is a "pass / fail" analysis of effect on the bad guy. The reader no longer has any way of learning how accurate the officers' fire was, and no way to assess the effectiveness of training in that regard. This is no doubt another "transparency feature" implemented under Mr. Bloomberg and is consistent with the progressive approach to dealing with the facts when the facts hurt. The solution is easy: change the calculations to hide the facts.

Right after the shooting I looked for the latest NYPD report, found the 2010 one, noticed the same thing you did...and thought the same thing. Can't fix the problem, so let's hide it.

You may recall I posted some months ago about the NYPD banning Kahr pistols for backup/off duty carry -- because Kahr couldn't or wouldn't modify them to have 12lb trigger pulls. Rather than fix the training problem that resulted in NDs, the NYPD first went for the heavy-duty trigger pull, and when that failed, banned carry. Similar mindset to hiding the poor hit/miss ratio. (I used to applaud the NYPD for at least having the guts to count and publish that data, but now...)

Excaliber wrote:... I think this is more of an excuse for laziness and apathy than a union issue. ...

The union connection is that the unions will fight tooth & nail to protect the lazy and the apathetic (for an example in a different field, google on "NYC teacher rubber room"). You would think other officers would be annoyed by this, since the lazy and the apathetic would be a danger to them, but doesn't seem that way.

This is the same city with the same police force that medically retired a detective who shot himself in the knee, then paid him a nice fat judgement when he turned around and sued NYC for negligence. (He was putting another officer's pistol in he waist band while sitting down, fell over backwards in chair, and boom! The detective claimed the chair was defective. Interestingly, while he was suing, he was also working as a court house security in one of the southern states, no doubt because local and state taxes would take a smaller bite out of his retirement pay...).

Ok, rant off, but NYC and all its departments have some serious problems.